Bush: Some are more equal than others

The Bush administration is enamored with the concept of broad executive
powers. More than any social issue like abortion, it is this issue that
drove their choice of nominees for the Supreme Court.

In 2001, John
Yoo's memo justifying torture basically stated that the president had
the right to break any law in the name of national security and could
not be held liable for any actions taken as Commander in Chief. No-one
stopped to mention that the stability and longevity of our democracy
rests on the checks and balances that come from three equal branches of
government. No, instead, this administration might take as it's motto
"some branches are more equal than others".

Specifically, the Yoo memo states that "the President enjoys complete discretion in the exercise of his Commander in Chief authority" (emphasis mine). A full fourth of the memo defends this position, explaining that neither Congress nor the courts can tell the President what he can and can't do as Commander in Chief. No laws can restrain him in that constitutional role. And even if an argument can be made that the law applies, the memo offered two fully developed defenses.

Of course, this is the same memo that the administration retracted just before the Gonzales hearings, with a quiet footnote that the retraction didn't apply to the analysis on Commander in Chief authority. So that analysis stands. And Bush doesn't want it challenged in court (hence the efforts to move the Padilla prosecution to criminal court). He needs friends on the Supreme Court, friends that will agree with Yoo's views on presidential supremacy. He needs friends to codify his "some branches are more equal than others" view of our government. We can't let him have them.

Here’s an excerpt:
Do you think that John Yoo, the guy who authored the Department of Justice memo justifying torture, believes that paedophilia is okay as long as the President believes it is necessary to save the nation? That my friends, as absurd as it sounds, is the thrust of the logic underpinning the arguments Woo and his buddies are making. Their assault on the traditional conservative view that the power of Federal Government should be limited is truly frightening. In the name of saving the nation they insist that international accords against torture and inhumane treatment no longer apply. They are also on board for holding American citizens in prison indefinitely without a chance to confront their accusers in court. If it is done in the name of "national security" it is okay.

It is too bad that the term "fascism" is such a hot button term, because it is a word that appears to accurately define Yoo's views on Presidential supremacy. I guess we are resigned to labelling him a neo-conservative imperialist, because he believes that the President's status as the Commander in Chief grants an inherent manifest destiny to wield unbridled power.

Joining Yoo's war wagon are David Rivkin and Lee Casey, who write in an op-ed in today's NY Times that the President can collect foreign intelligence, even in the United States, without worrying himself about pesky laws and bureaucratic hurdles.